Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The Revolution of the Ancient World

    THE REVOLUTION IN THE ANCIENT WORLD Where are aristotle, plato, socrates, zeno, epicurus, roman law, greek mathematics, and the christian destruction of the ancient world in your narrative? The talmud, bible and koran are not an enlightenment but simply the marxism-socialism- postmodernism-feminism of the ancient world: the counter-revolution against reason.The revolution in the ancient world was reason. It was democritus’ atomism, socratic skepticism (failure), platonic idealism(failure), and the success of aristotelian reason, empiricism, proto-science, stoic and epicurean replacement of conflationary religion, and roman law and administration, creating markets for all peoples – but the semites (the equivalent of ghettos) couldn’t grasp that ‘uncontrolled vision’ and sought to restore controlled (feminine) monopoly and conflation using female methods of deceit, and the female method of undermining from within. The revolution in the modern world starts with aesthetics in italy and makes its way into the legal minds who apply it to science producing the anglo revolution (athens). The germans(spartans) reacted by doubling down on it and becoming the worlds best materialists, and the americans inherited both civilizations for a time when the french and russians instigated the third war of german containment. Weak minds need certainty. Mindfulness doesn’t.

    by Martin Štěpán: I’ve been listening to Xenophon’s memorabilia. What Socrates appears to be doing is not so much being skeptical but asking exactly the right questions to get the other to get exactly where he wants him to get. But in this, he’s teaching genuinely good values and makes people think about things they really should be thinking about. I’m not seeing the failure.

    In my understanding he invented rhetorical falsification. The scale of this innovation, in retrospect, is … it’s conceptually revolutionary. Because he is not trying to deceive. He is trying to create the habit of inquiry. His ‘failure’ was in producing a systematic work. Plato’s systematic work was a train wreck. Aristotle’s systemic work, at least from my perspective, is a reaction against plato’s. When I read aristotle and plato i get the feeling that I have when reading the Abrahamists – it makes me angry. I think Aristotle might have had a similar reaction.

    by Martin Štěpán: I remember some of the passages from the Organon that definitely read like a reaction. Plato’s Socrates in the early works is truly just skeptical and contradicts every interpretation so that at the end, nobody is certain of anything. Whereas Aristotle says we have to enumerate possible meanings (serialize?) and inquire which one applies in the context (disambiguate?). Organon ultimately must have been much more important work than all wrong scientific conclusions he came up with. (I didn’t get to Ethics yet.) And yeah, Plato turned Socrates into proto-Jesus.

  • The Revolution of the Ancient World

    THE REVOLUTION IN THE ANCIENT WORLD Where are aristotle, plato, socrates, zeno, epicurus, roman law, greek mathematics, and the christian destruction of the ancient world in your narrative? The talmud, bible and koran are not an enlightenment but simply the marxism-socialism- postmodernism-feminism of the ancient world: the counter-revolution against reason.The revolution in the ancient world was reason. It was democritus’ atomism, socratic skepticism (failure), platonic idealism(failure), and the success of aristotelian reason, empiricism, proto-science, stoic and epicurean replacement of conflationary religion, and roman law and administration, creating markets for all peoples – but the semites (the equivalent of ghettos) couldn’t grasp that ‘uncontrolled vision’ and sought to restore controlled (feminine) monopoly and conflation using female methods of deceit, and the female method of undermining from within. The revolution in the modern world starts with aesthetics in italy and makes its way into the legal minds who apply it to science producing the anglo revolution (athens). The germans(spartans) reacted by doubling down on it and becoming the worlds best materialists, and the americans inherited both civilizations for a time when the french and russians instigated the third war of german containment. Weak minds need certainty. Mindfulness doesn’t.

    by Martin Štěpán: I’ve been listening to Xenophon’s memorabilia. What Socrates appears to be doing is not so much being skeptical but asking exactly the right questions to get the other to get exactly where he wants him to get. But in this, he’s teaching genuinely good values and makes people think about things they really should be thinking about. I’m not seeing the failure.

    In my understanding he invented rhetorical falsification. The scale of this innovation, in retrospect, is … it’s conceptually revolutionary. Because he is not trying to deceive. He is trying to create the habit of inquiry. His ‘failure’ was in producing a systematic work. Plato’s systematic work was a train wreck. Aristotle’s systemic work, at least from my perspective, is a reaction against plato’s. When I read aristotle and plato i get the feeling that I have when reading the Abrahamists – it makes me angry. I think Aristotle might have had a similar reaction.

    by Martin Štěpán: I remember some of the passages from the Organon that definitely read like a reaction. Plato’s Socrates in the early works is truly just skeptical and contradicts every interpretation so that at the end, nobody is certain of anything. Whereas Aristotle says we have to enumerate possible meanings (serialize?) and inquire which one applies in the context (disambiguate?). Organon ultimately must have been much more important work than all wrong scientific conclusions he came up with. (I didn’t get to Ethics yet.) And yeah, Plato turned Socrates into proto-Jesus.

  • re: Jackson Crawford, Tyr vs. Odin as Chief God

    Dr. Crawford; In order to suppress controversy you’re overstating your case. You’re representing sources, because under the defensive protection of the scientific method, we don’t hypothesize without evidence. Meanwhile I think Dumezil and the rest of us are interested in the evolution of european natural religion over time. To claim we can’t use etymology which is about as close to genetic evidence that we come, is rather unscientific, and to claim we can’t apply the same method of analysis to mythology is also. And to claim the popularity of the farmer’s god over the ruling class’ god in a tripartite hierarchical society given the difference in those demographics isn’t scientific either. Every mythos we know of evolved like every political and legal technology and every narrative technology by rules similar to language. Every mythic tradition is subject to the same forensics. So you’re creating conflict where there isn’t any. It is very hard to argue that Odin didn’t rise to prominence some time between the IE expansion and first testimony (roman). That would mean that european natural religion had a deus ex machina moment and Odin came out of nowhere in contrast to the entire cross civilizational IE pantheon. In the context of all those european mythologies, Odin is a pretty clear rotation into prominence. And Odin is the ‘odd man out’ in european religion. Of the european iranic and indo-iranic branches, each group evolved deities to fulfill the needs of a survival narrative given geographic and cultural competition. Europeans gods are are interesting because conquering (and replacing) early neolithic farmers was easier than the more advanced civilizations of the indus and mesopotamian regions. They were under less adaptive pressure. Yet still we have Odin. Why? That’s the interesting question. How did he rotate into prominence and why? So to say Odin is the primary germanic god – well of course he is by the thirteenth century record. That doesn’t tell us anything interesting. It doesn’t provide explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us why and where he came from. What change or pressure or advantage caused the germanic branch of the european expansion to rotate a psychopomp into the primary god (all father) to replace sky father? What drove the germanic adaptation (rotation) of a psychopomp into the god of the aristocracy?

  • re: Jackson Crawford, Tyr vs. Odin as Chief God

    Dr. Crawford; In order to suppress controversy you’re overstating your case. You’re representing sources, because under the defensive protection of the scientific method, we don’t hypothesize without evidence. Meanwhile I think Dumezil and the rest of us are interested in the evolution of european natural religion over time. To claim we can’t use etymology which is about as close to genetic evidence that we come, is rather unscientific, and to claim we can’t apply the same method of analysis to mythology is also. And to claim the popularity of the farmer’s god over the ruling class’ god in a tripartite hierarchical society given the difference in those demographics isn’t scientific either. Every mythos we know of evolved like every political and legal technology and every narrative technology by rules similar to language. Every mythic tradition is subject to the same forensics. So you’re creating conflict where there isn’t any. It is very hard to argue that Odin didn’t rise to prominence some time between the IE expansion and first testimony (roman). That would mean that european natural religion had a deus ex machina moment and Odin came out of nowhere in contrast to the entire cross civilizational IE pantheon. In the context of all those european mythologies, Odin is a pretty clear rotation into prominence. And Odin is the ‘odd man out’ in european religion. Of the european iranic and indo-iranic branches, each group evolved deities to fulfill the needs of a survival narrative given geographic and cultural competition. Europeans gods are are interesting because conquering (and replacing) early neolithic farmers was easier than the more advanced civilizations of the indus and mesopotamian regions. They were under less adaptive pressure. Yet still we have Odin. Why? That’s the interesting question. How did he rotate into prominence and why? So to say Odin is the primary germanic god – well of course he is by the thirteenth century record. That doesn’t tell us anything interesting. It doesn’t provide explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us why and where he came from. What change or pressure or advantage caused the germanic branch of the european expansion to rotate a psychopomp into the primary god (all father) to replace sky father? What drove the germanic adaptation (rotation) of a psychopomp into the god of the aristocracy?

  • re: “I Never Err”

    RE: “I NEVER ERR” I don’t think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof in P-logic that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so damned difficult – impossible really – to err if you write one. But sure, I make mistakes all the time, like everyone else. A mistake has no bearing on the outcome. An error has a bearing on the outcome. It is very very difficult to make an error in P-logic. The phrasing “I never err” is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame I need to work within, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text in order to discover the opponent’s frame. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. The purpose of P-logic is falsificationary: we create definitions that consists of series, and supply demand curves, and use them to create fields of arguments that falsify more than justify. So P-logic seeks to expose so many falsehoods that only truthful statements can survive. As such where traditional philosophy seeks to find agreement between parties, P-logic falsifies all possibilities other than what we must agree to. In other words, the purpose of P-logic is to eliminate falsehood. It suppresses falsehood, bias, and deceit. And this is so novel that without some experience with math, computer science, or economics, it’s somewhere between counter-intuitive and inconceivable for most people. And that’s because P-logic is prosecutorial. You do’t end up disagreeing. You end up exposing the other party as a thief. This is why P-logic is so powerful. If the technique offends you, then It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.

  • re: “I Never Err”

    RE: “I NEVER ERR” I don’t think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof in P-logic that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so damned difficult – impossible really – to err if you write one. But sure, I make mistakes all the time, like everyone else. A mistake has no bearing on the outcome. An error has a bearing on the outcome. It is very very difficult to make an error in P-logic. The phrasing “I never err” is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame I need to work within, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text in order to discover the opponent’s frame. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. The purpose of P-logic is falsificationary: we create definitions that consists of series, and supply demand curves, and use them to create fields of arguments that falsify more than justify. So P-logic seeks to expose so many falsehoods that only truthful statements can survive. As such where traditional philosophy seeks to find agreement between parties, P-logic falsifies all possibilities other than what we must agree to. In other words, the purpose of P-logic is to eliminate falsehood. It suppresses falsehood, bias, and deceit. And this is so novel that without some experience with math, computer science, or economics, it’s somewhere between counter-intuitive and inconceivable for most people. And that’s because P-logic is prosecutorial. You do’t end up disagreeing. You end up exposing the other party as a thief. This is why P-logic is so powerful. If the technique offends you, then It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.

  • Curt Doolittle There are two priesthoods in our civilization, the material and t

    Curt Doolittle There are two priesthoods in our civilization, the material and the faithful. I did not realize that this is one of the secrets of our success until recently. I will work on faith when I am done with law. Law was very difficult. But faith that is true is an even greater test of my ability and I think it is possible I might solve it for all of those who want religion, whether spiritual, rational, or scientific, and whether submissive, practical, or aryan (heroic). It is possible. I dont know if I can do it

  • Curt Doolittle There are two priesthoods in our civilization, the material and t

    Curt Doolittle There are two priesthoods in our civilization, the material and the faithful. I did not realize that this is one of the secrets of our success until recently. I will work on faith when I am done with law. Law was very difficult. But faith that is true is an even greater test of my ability and I think it is possible I might solve it for all of those who want religion, whether spiritual, rational, or scientific, and whether submissive, practical, or aryan (heroic). It is possible. I dont know if I can do it

  • Is P Either Supremacist or Fascist?

    —“Hey Curt sorry to be a nuisance, I have so many questions and concerns about propertarianism. I truly want it to work and to make it grow. Buy maybe it’s me over thinking or seeing things that are not there, but let me ask straight out. 1. Is propertarianism a white supremacist movement? 2. Is it a Fascist form of Government? 3. Will people be Slaves under it? I ask because I see stuff that gives credibility to those questions but then I also see stuff from you and john that tend to counter that. I’ve pledged my support and my guns to you but I need to be able to counter these kinds of questions when talking to people as well as in my own mind. You are an amazing man Curt I truly appreciate your time and what your doing. Thank you for you time.”—

    [I]t’s none of those things. If I call propertarianism “the scientific and logical articulation of the traditional ancestral natural law of the european peoples” does that answer your question? Propertarianism consists of: 1) A methodology that completes the scientific method merging all the logics, sciences, narratives, and deceits into a universally commensurable language. In other words, we describe all existence as one continuous language (paradigm, vocabular, gramma) using operational language (semantics). This produces a universal system of measurement across all disciplines. (it solves EO Wilson’s predicted Wilsonian Synthesis) 2) A methodology for writing constitutions and laws in that language. With this methodology you can produce ANY political social and economic order you desire as long as you do so truthfully and reciprocally. 3) An explanation of the reason for western civilization’s disproportionate success at evolution in relation to other civilizations – that explanation is our accidental development of the most adaptive civilization that is possible for human beings to construct: soverignty. 4) A constitutional template that would restore that disproportionate success by reversing the harms against our civilization in the 19th and 20th centuries – largely by the second jewish revolt against civilization that we call marxism, socialism, feminism, postmodernism, social construction, and denialism. 5) That constitution allows the formation of many small states under a common military and judicial defense of the ’empire’ that each produce different social orders within that natural law constitution. 6) Some of those social orders will be separatist (by race) and some will not. Some will be conservative (middle) and some will be consumptive (liberal, top and bottom). 7) So propertarianism isn’t ANY ideology, it’s a means of creating political systems and separating by political system as suits our preference – markets in everything – just as was possible throughout european history. So if you were to ask me if european civilization is superior to all others then the answer is empirically yes. If you ask me if european genome is superior to others than empirically yes, except for perhaps our fragile skin, and vulnerability to deception by the abrahamic method of deceit. If you ask me if I want to live (myself) in an homogenous ethnostate, but would like to visit other ethnostates, then the answer would be yes. If you ask me if every group of people should – if any such “should” exists – be granted reciprocal rights to self determination presuming they pay the cost and consequences of it, then yes. Because that is the natural law. Propertarianism is just science expanded from the physical sciences to all sciences, including psychological, social, economic, political, and group evolutionary. Propertarianism completes the scientific method and allows us to use that science for producing social orders that suit our interests: polities as PRODUCTS. Now if you understand this but disagree with it then you are absolutely positively a bad person and a threat to humankind and I will, and my people will, try to remove you and that threat you pose to human kind. There is no more moral objective above this, because this is simply the optimum evolutionary strategy available to man, with the optimum freedom available to man – at the attendant cost of one’s choices. The only alternative to P’s political solution is parasitism, predation, and war. Which I’m fine with because frankly, we are really, really good at war. So to answer questions: 1. “Is propertarianism a white supremacist movement?” Propertarianism allows all movements to separate into states that pursue the interests of their people as long as they do not externalize the costs of their choices. One of those choices will obviously be some number of ethnostates each claiming superiority. 2. “Is it a Fascist form of Government? “ (a) There is no definition of fascist other than intolerant, conformist, ethnic, nationalist, with greater emphasis on state investment in capital intensive industries that prohibits political competition to replace that form of organization. China is a fascist state. But it is also a deceptive state. The Italians and the nazis were not deceptive states they said exactly what they were doing and why. If you want to built an intolerant conformist ethnic nationalist state with greater emphasis on state investment in capital intensive industries using propertarian method of law, then you can. You just can’t do it deceptively. All china would have to do is be honest like the Italians and Germans. Russia is sort of half way honest. But is still a resource harvester not an industrial country. (b) The constitution I have recommended is intolerant of competition against the political organization because as far as I know there is no possible competitor to that organization that is not a violation of natural law. That’s why I call it ‘perfect government’. This government is flexible in that it can switch between authoritarian in war, republican in growth, and redistributive in windfalls. The law is intolerant because it prohibits irreciprocal display word and deed, so it reduces one’s freedom to propagandize, bend the truth, lie, cheat, fraud, bait into hazard in public, to the public, in matters public. In other words you must be more careful making truth or good claims. This constitution also suppresses all the means by which our people have been lied to over the twentieth century((())). So it would crush the financial, advertising, media, entertainment, academic, and political sectors and transfer all our efforts in those sectors to non-parasitic, non-false, objectives – productivity rather tan parasitism. the result will be a new renaissance as capital is directed to truthful and reciprocal production.

    1. “Will people be Slaves under it?”

    Prisoners are in slavery. Soldiers are in indentured servitude. WPA (nationalized work force) are in indentured servitude. Unionized and State Directed labor is in serfdom. Dependents have freedom People with capital have liberty Some people have sufficient capital that they are at least functionally sovereign. Chattel slavery (involuntary) is irreciprocal. Indentured servitude exchanges responsibility for room and board for directed labor, minimal pay, and no right of exit. The question is this: should we tolerate indentured servitude? We do in public affairs (the military). But should we in private affairs? It is not irreciprocal, and if people did so voluntarily it is hard to say no. The problem is in modernity almost no one could afford indentured servants. So it is an unlikely question. So in the sense you mean “are there chattel slaves” then the answer is a rather obvious no.

  • Is P Either Supremacist or Fascist?

    —“Hey Curt sorry to be a nuisance, I have so many questions and concerns about propertarianism. I truly want it to work and to make it grow. Buy maybe it’s me over thinking or seeing things that are not there, but let me ask straight out. 1. Is propertarianism a white supremacist movement? 2. Is it a Fascist form of Government? 3. Will people be Slaves under it? I ask because I see stuff that gives credibility to those questions but then I also see stuff from you and john that tend to counter that. I’ve pledged my support and my guns to you but I need to be able to counter these kinds of questions when talking to people as well as in my own mind. You are an amazing man Curt I truly appreciate your time and what your doing. Thank you for you time.”—

    [I]t’s none of those things. If I call propertarianism “the scientific and logical articulation of the traditional ancestral natural law of the european peoples” does that answer your question? Propertarianism consists of: 1) A methodology that completes the scientific method merging all the logics, sciences, narratives, and deceits into a universally commensurable language. In other words, we describe all existence as one continuous language (paradigm, vocabular, gramma) using operational language (semantics). This produces a universal system of measurement across all disciplines. (it solves EO Wilson’s predicted Wilsonian Synthesis) 2) A methodology for writing constitutions and laws in that language. With this methodology you can produce ANY political social and economic order you desire as long as you do so truthfully and reciprocally. 3) An explanation of the reason for western civilization’s disproportionate success at evolution in relation to other civilizations – that explanation is our accidental development of the most adaptive civilization that is possible for human beings to construct: soverignty. 4) A constitutional template that would restore that disproportionate success by reversing the harms against our civilization in the 19th and 20th centuries – largely by the second jewish revolt against civilization that we call marxism, socialism, feminism, postmodernism, social construction, and denialism. 5) That constitution allows the formation of many small states under a common military and judicial defense of the ’empire’ that each produce different social orders within that natural law constitution. 6) Some of those social orders will be separatist (by race) and some will not. Some will be conservative (middle) and some will be consumptive (liberal, top and bottom). 7) So propertarianism isn’t ANY ideology, it’s a means of creating political systems and separating by political system as suits our preference – markets in everything – just as was possible throughout european history. So if you were to ask me if european civilization is superior to all others then the answer is empirically yes. If you ask me if european genome is superior to others than empirically yes, except for perhaps our fragile skin, and vulnerability to deception by the abrahamic method of deceit. If you ask me if I want to live (myself) in an homogenous ethnostate, but would like to visit other ethnostates, then the answer would be yes. If you ask me if every group of people should – if any such “should” exists – be granted reciprocal rights to self determination presuming they pay the cost and consequences of it, then yes. Because that is the natural law. Propertarianism is just science expanded from the physical sciences to all sciences, including psychological, social, economic, political, and group evolutionary. Propertarianism completes the scientific method and allows us to use that science for producing social orders that suit our interests: polities as PRODUCTS. Now if you understand this but disagree with it then you are absolutely positively a bad person and a threat to humankind and I will, and my people will, try to remove you and that threat you pose to human kind. There is no more moral objective above this, because this is simply the optimum evolutionary strategy available to man, with the optimum freedom available to man – at the attendant cost of one’s choices. The only alternative to P’s political solution is parasitism, predation, and war. Which I’m fine with because frankly, we are really, really good at war. So to answer questions: 1. “Is propertarianism a white supremacist movement?” Propertarianism allows all movements to separate into states that pursue the interests of their people as long as they do not externalize the costs of their choices. One of those choices will obviously be some number of ethnostates each claiming superiority. 2. “Is it a Fascist form of Government? “ (a) There is no definition of fascist other than intolerant, conformist, ethnic, nationalist, with greater emphasis on state investment in capital intensive industries that prohibits political competition to replace that form of organization. China is a fascist state. But it is also a deceptive state. The Italians and the nazis were not deceptive states they said exactly what they were doing and why. If you want to built an intolerant conformist ethnic nationalist state with greater emphasis on state investment in capital intensive industries using propertarian method of law, then you can. You just can’t do it deceptively. All china would have to do is be honest like the Italians and Germans. Russia is sort of half way honest. But is still a resource harvester not an industrial country. (b) The constitution I have recommended is intolerant of competition against the political organization because as far as I know there is no possible competitor to that organization that is not a violation of natural law. That’s why I call it ‘perfect government’. This government is flexible in that it can switch between authoritarian in war, republican in growth, and redistributive in windfalls. The law is intolerant because it prohibits irreciprocal display word and deed, so it reduces one’s freedom to propagandize, bend the truth, lie, cheat, fraud, bait into hazard in public, to the public, in matters public. In other words you must be more careful making truth or good claims. This constitution also suppresses all the means by which our people have been lied to over the twentieth century((())). So it would crush the financial, advertising, media, entertainment, academic, and political sectors and transfer all our efforts in those sectors to non-parasitic, non-false, objectives – productivity rather tan parasitism. the result will be a new renaissance as capital is directed to truthful and reciprocal production.

    1. “Will people be Slaves under it?”

    Prisoners are in slavery. Soldiers are in indentured servitude. WPA (nationalized work force) are in indentured servitude. Unionized and State Directed labor is in serfdom. Dependents have freedom People with capital have liberty Some people have sufficient capital that they are at least functionally sovereign. Chattel slavery (involuntary) is irreciprocal. Indentured servitude exchanges responsibility for room and board for directed labor, minimal pay, and no right of exit. The question is this: should we tolerate indentured servitude? We do in public affairs (the military). But should we in private affairs? It is not irreciprocal, and if people did so voluntarily it is hard to say no. The problem is in modernity almost no one could afford indentured servants. So it is an unlikely question. So in the sense you mean “are there chattel slaves” then the answer is a rather obvious no.